New polls on who we are

bravo said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/us/politics/23social.html

Democrats Resisting Obama on Social Security

By JACKIE CALMES
Published: February 22, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama is eager to seek a bipartisan solution to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security, people who have spoken with him say, but he is running into opposition from his party’s left and from Democratic Congressional leaders who contend that his political capital would be better spent on health care and other priorities.

The president signaled in his campaign that he would support addressing the retirement system’s looming financing shortfall, in part by applying payroll taxes to incomes above $250,000.

Wow...Obama thinks there's a " looming financing shortfall" and he "MUST RAISE TAXES"???

WTF ? You need to get the message to the Messiah...
Click to expand...

Obama is trying to sell the same privatization snake oil the right espouses .. and he's using the same false information in his attempt.

Of course democrats are going to resist that bullshit .. as they should.
 
blackascoal said:
I love you man .. I just love it when you talk .. because you are a moron and you make me look so damn good.

Why Social Security ISN'T Going Broke

PORT WASHINGTON, N.Y. (MarketWatch) -- Reports that the Social Security system will soon run out of money have been greatly exaggerated.

As sure as day follows night, the annual report from the board of trustees of the OASDI fund (Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance otherwise known as Social Security) has brought forth alarms that the fund will run out of money in the not-too-distant future.

Although flush with cash now and over at least the next 10 years, the Social Security system is expected to gradually begin paying out more in benefits than it takes in from payroll taxes with the result that by 2041 its assets, in the words of the trustees, will be exhausted.

For those who look at only the summary page, this conclusion is nothing new. Indeed, the trustees have come to the same conclusion every year -- the only exception being the year the fund is expected to run dry.
In 2000, the system's actuaries thought the assets of this fund would be exhausted by 2032. Two years later it was 2037. Now the projected exhaustion date is 2041.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office, which makes these projections as well, recently thought the system will remain solvent until at least 2052.
Me, I don't make these projections personally, but I would like to point out that this year, as has been the case every year in the past, the actuaries have made and released not one but three projections. They call them low cost, intermediate and high cost.

The projection that has provoked these alarms is the intermediate projection. This reflects the trustees' consensus views regarding such inputs as economic growth, productivity, inflation, earnings, employment and interest rates.

Judging by past history, assumptions underlying the intermediate projection are very conservative -- especially when it comes to economic growth. And as you might imagine, the speed at which the economy grows has a lot to do with the other variables -- including the interest the fund earns from investing its surplus in Treasuries.

The intermediate projection assumes that the economy will grow by an annual rate of 2.3% per year between now and 2085. This may be higher than the 1.9% per year that was projected as recently as three years ago, but it is still well below the 3.4% that the economy grew on average between 1960 and 2005.

The actuaries' own low cost projection assumes an average annual growth rate of 2.9% between now and 2085. This is higher than the 2.3% pace embodied in the intermediate projection, but it is still well below the 3.4% average of the past.

Guess what? Under the actuaries' low cost projection, the Social Security system never runs out of money!

That said, you might ask the question why this more realistic projection has escaped politicians from both major parties.
I don't know why, but I can only theorize that it's because they haven't taken the time to read the entire report, which is available on the system's website. Here's the link.

If you go beyond the highlights section to the projections section, you will see exactly what I mean.

In other words -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

From MarketWatch
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={8EC16D27-8104-43B4-871C-95D9A78EBCF1}
Click to expand...

LMAO.... such a good little brainwashed moron you are... ANYTIME you have a rob peter to pay paul scheme it is entirely dependent on bringing in more new people's money than what the scheme pays out to those taking distributions.

Everyone thought the Madoff returns were great too.... right up until it blew up. Watch as the boomers retire... watch how fast benefits are cut, the age of eligibility is increased or the system goes down.

It is a ponzi scheme. But morons like you are too ignorant to see it because your beloved government put out a report that says it might be ok under one of three scenarios. We all know that the government does everything efficiently and thus will hit the low cost projections.
 
blackascoal said:
Social Security is not an investment tool .. AND, what does "long-term" have to do with it?

I ask AGAIN, how much would Social Security have lost in this economic disaster?

Do you believe that the lives of American seniors can wait for "long-term" investments/GAMBLE to pay off?

Following this failed course most American seniors would be eating dog food now or they'd be dead. The system would be as broke as investors.
Click to expand...

I ask AGAIN, how much would Social Security have lost in this economic disaster?
===
We don't know....we don't know because it was never concluded HOW or WHERE any SS contributions would have been invested....
What we do know is that the government meant to severely limit and restrict both the amount and how the money would be allocated for investment.

So all you can do is speculate....
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO.... such a good little brainwashed moron you are... ANYTIME you have a rob peter to pay paul scheme it is entirely dependent on bringing in more new people's money than what the scheme pays out to those taking distributions.

Everyone thought the Madoff returns were great too.... right up until it blew up. Watch as the boomers retire... watch how fast benefits are cut, the age of eligibility is increased or the system goes down.

It is a ponzi scheme. But morons like you are too ignorant to see it because your beloved government put out a report that says it might be ok under one of three scenarios. We all know that the government does everything efficiently and thus will hit the low cost projections.
Click to expand...


Funny. I didn't know that Madoff has a trust fund invested in Treasury Bonds set up.
 
blackascoal said:
Social Security is not an investment tool .. AND, what does "long-term" have to do with it?

I ask AGAIN, how much would Social Security have lost in this economic disaster?

Do you believe that the lives of American seniors can wait for "long-term" investments/GAMBLE to pay off?

Following this failed course most American seniors would be eating dog food now or they'd be dead. The system would be as broke as investors.
Click to expand...

The reason he says long term moron is that had the SS funds been invested in the market prior to 1997, you would have made money. For the past ten years you would be flat. Now if the money had all gone into the stock market at the start of 2008, yeah that would have been bad. But NO ONE was suggesting to do that. Yet ignorant brainwashed morons like yourself cannot help but continue to cling desperately to that idiotic assertation.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO.... such a good little brainwashed moron you are... ANYTIME you have a rob peter to pay paul scheme it is entirely dependent on bringing in more new people's money than what the scheme pays out to those taking distributions.

Everyone thought the Madoff returns were great too.... right up until it blew up. Watch as the boomers retire... watch how fast benefits are cut, the age of eligibility is increased or the system goes down.

It is a ponzi scheme. But morons like you are too ignorant to see it because your beloved government put out a report that says it might be ok under one of three scenarios. We all know that the government does everything efficiently and thus will hit the low cost projections.
Click to expand...

The fact that you're a moron is known .. what I did not know is that you can't even fucking read .. because you don't seem to have interpreted anything stated in the FACTS.

Comparing Social Secuity to Madoff is moronic .. but then again .. :)
 
Superfreak said:
The reason he says long term moron is that had the SS funds been invested in the market prior to 1997, you would have made money. For the past ten years you would be flat. Now if the money had all gone into the stock market at the start of 2008, yeah that would have been bad. But NO ONE was suggesting to do that. Yet ignorant brainwashed morons like yourself cannot help but continue to cling desperately to that idiotic assertation.
Click to expand...

I ask AGAIN, how much would Social Security have lost in this economic disaster?
 
Dungheap said:
Funny. I didn't know that Madoff has a trust fund invested in Treasury Bonds set up.
Click to expand...

LMAO... yeah, a great trust fund... one that is underfunded and continually borrowed against.... I wonder where that money is going to come from? The one thing Madoff didn't have was the ability to print endless amounts of new cash..... The government does .... for NOW. They keep it up and that bubble will also burst.
 
Dungheap said:
Relax. Obama isn't going there.
Click to expand...

Right, he isn't going there.......Democratic Congressional leaders who contend that his political capital would be better spent on health care and other priorities.
Dims support more socialism rather than financing the existing socialism....
 
Norman Thomas said this in a 1944 speech:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
 
blackascoal said:
I ask AGAIN, how much would Social Security have lost in this economic disaster?
Click to expand...

I tell you again moron.... do try to pay attention this time.... SS might not have lost a dime... you again are running scared under your moronic idiotic insane bullshit that the money if privatized would have all gone into the stock market. That is not the case moron.

So enough of your bullshit fearmongering. Just admit that you are a brainwashed idiot and be done with it.
 
blackascoal said:
I ask AGAIN, how much would Social Security have lost in this economic disaster?
Click to expand...


Again how fucking stupid are you, it's barely a 4th grade argument to pick the begining of the crash. Go back since you been in college and tell me what's out performed the biggest 500 companies. Socialist, you belong in Russia not Georgia.
 
blackascoal said:
The fact that you're a moron is known .. what I did not know is that you can't even fucking read .. because you don't seem to have interpreted anything stated in the FACTS.

Comparing Social Secuity to Madoff is moronic .. but then again .. :)
Click to expand...

No moron, they are both ponzi schemes. When you rely on money coming from you and I to pay for someone who is currently retired, that system will fail once you have too many retirees per working individual.

You want a better comparison... look at GM and their pension problems. That is what happens. You end up fucked. But knowing what a brainwashed idiot you are.... I would imagine that you like taking it from Uncle Sam.
 
bravo said:
Right, he isn't going there.......Democratic Congressional leaders who contend that his political capital would be better spent on health care and other priorities.
Dims support more socialism rather than financing the existing socialism....
Click to expand...


I was referring to privatization. Hopefully, he will implement payroll taxes on income above $500,000.
 
bravo said:
I ask AGAIN, how much would Social Security have lost in this economic disaster?
===
We don't know....we don't know because it was never concluded HOW or WHERE any SS contributions would have been invested....
What we do know is that the government meant to severely limit and restrict both the amount and how the money would be allocated for investment.

So all you can do is speculate....
Click to expand...

Which is all you can do .. which is all investments are about .. speculation.

One thing for sure, there is no question that Social Security would have taken a big hit at a time when more and more American seniors are relying on it for survival .. many of whom who were once big time investors .. speculators.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... yeah, a great trust fund... one that is underfunded and continually borrowed against.... I wonder where that money is going to come from? The one thing Madoff didn't have was the ability to print endless amounts of new cash..... The government does .... for NOW. They keep it up and that bubble will also burst.
Click to expand...


Again, your position boils down to the government defaulting on Treasury Bonds, which is odd since you are simultaneously advocating for individuals to invest SS taxes in Treasury Bonds.
 
SS would have lost 40% from top to bottom is it was started at the top of the market.
If it were started when first proposed nothing would beat it.
Investing is about OWNERSHIP,
trading is about speculation.
Guess they didn't teach that in your database design class.
 
blackascoal said:
Which is all you can do .. which is all investments are about .. speculation.

One thing for sure, there is no question that Social Security would have taken a big hit at a time when more and more American seniors are relying on it for survival .. many of whom who were once big time investors .. speculators.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ....Government Bonds always pay something

It varies ... but its something...EVEN NOW in this economy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top